On April 26, the Vermont
Senate passed SB 108, to use Instant-Runoff Voting in U.S. Senate and U.S.
House races. The vote was 16-12.

No state in the U.S.
has ever used Instant-Runoff Voting (or any alternate vote system) for a statewide
general election. A few states in the South used IRV for primaries, about
100 years ago. If the bill passes the House this year and is signed into law,
it will take effect in 2008. It happens that there is no U.S. Senate race
in Vermont in 2008.

In case the House doesnít
pass the bill this year, the bill could still pass in 2008, since Vermont
legislative sessions are two-year sessions. In other words, if the legislature
goes home without finishing, the bill doesnít need to start all over again
next year. The Vermont legislature prefers to adjourn in mid-May, but sometimes
it stays until June.

It is difficult to overestimate
the importance of IRV and other alternate vote systems, for minor parties
and independent candidates. When the U.S. Supreme Court has been hostile to
minor party and independent candidate ballot access, the root of the hostility
seems to be a fear that having minor party and independent candidates on the
general election ballot changes the outcome, relative to what the outcome
would have been with only the Democratic and Republican candidates on the
ballot.

For instance, in Jenness
v Fortson, the U.S. Supreme Court listed only three reasons why lenient
ballot access might be bad. The Court said that keeping minor party and independent
candidates off the ballot helps to avoid "confusion, deception, and frustration
of the democratic process at the general election." The Court did not
elaborate; that single sentence is all the Court said about the harm done
by easy access.

"Confusion"
is a reference to overcrowded ballots. However, since 1971, when the decision
came out, social science research has shown that ballot crowding is never
a problem if a state requires as few as 5,000 signatures. States that require
5,000 or more signatures never have more than eight candidates on the ballot
for any particular race.

The reference to "deception"
is a Court error. During the oral argument in Jenness, Chief Justice
Earl Burger had said that an independent candidate named George Norris had
run for U.S. Senate in Nebraska for the nefarious purpose of injuring U.S.
Senator George Norris, who was running for re-election. Burger said this was
done to trick voters who would otherwise vote for Senator Norris, into voting
for the wrong Norris. But the truth is that Burger was confused. The dirty
trick happened in a Republican primary in Nebraska, not in a general election.
It wouldnít have worked in a general election, since Nebraska and all states
put partisan labels on the ballot. The fake Norris would have had "independent"
next to his name; the real Norris would have had "Republican."

That just leaves "frustration."
The Court meant that if a third party or independent candidate gets on the
ballot, that might cause the outcome to be different. Documents in the Library
of Congress from the notes of U.S. Supreme Court conferences show that the
Justices agonized about this, when they were trying to decide whether to put
independent presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy on the ballot in Texas
in 1976, and whether to keep John B. Anderson on the ballot in Ohio in 1980.
The Court ruled favorably to both candidates, by several justices fretted
that these decisions might be responsible for tipping the outcome of these
presidential elections.

Although the 1980 election
was not close, it was perceived to be close. President Jimmy Carter and his
supporters were convinced that Anderson was injuring Carterís chances for
re-election, and Carter and the Democratic National Committee intervened in
various lower courts to keep both McCarthy and Anderson off ballots.

Instant-Runoff Voting
removes this objection to having minor party and independent candidates on
the ballot. With IRV, or any of the other alternate voting systems, there
is no longer any motive for honorable people to favor restrictive ballot access
laws.

Vermont activists have
been working for IRV for nine years. On January 4, 1999, an elite Commission
in Vermont, including leaders of the major parties, the League of Women Voters,
and academics, had recommended that Vermont use IRV. Bills have been introduced
ever since, but this is the first time one has passed either House.

It is fitting that Vermont
should be the first state to come close to adopting IRV, since Vermont has
the nationís strongest minor party. The Progressive Party, which exists only
in Vermont, has six state legislators and also holds the Mayorship of the
stateís largest city, Burlington.

ILLINOIS
BALLOT ACCESS BILL

The lead story in the
April 1 BAN was that on March 30, the Illinois Senate had passed SB
733. That bill substantially eases ballot access. On April 9, it was sent
to the House Rules Committee. It has not advanced since then, but the Illinois
legislature meets almost all year. Also, the legislature must pass something,
since the existing law is void.

MINNESOTA
BILL IS NO LONGER HARMFUL

The April 1 B.A.N.
said that the Minnesota Secretary of Stateís omnibus election law bills,
SF1298 and HF1110, made it more difficult for a new party to get on the ballot.
The bills created a "start date" for the petition to create a new
party. By contrast, the existing law lets a group start as early as it wants
and take as long as it needs, even several years, if necessary. Also the bills
moved the deadline from July to May.

Fortunately, SF1298 was
amended to delete those ideas, and the amended bill passed the Senate on April
27.

COLORADO
BILL MOVES

On April 24, Colorado
SB 83 passed the House State, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee. It
had already passed the Senate. It lets a qualified minor party nominate someone,
even if that person has not been a member of the party for the preceding year.
Qualified major parties already have this right. The existing restrictive
law was used last year to prevent the Colorado Libertarian Party from nominating
Ken Waters for Sheriff of Arapahoe County. As a result, only one candidate
was on the ballot.

Also, the bill lets people
circulate a petition for a candidate for district or county office, even if
they donít live in that candidateís district or county.

Part of the bill would
have let ex-felons on parole register to vote. However, the Committee deleted
that part of the bill, since the Colorado Constitution says people convicted
of a felony cannot vote until the entire term of their sentence is complete.

NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE BILLS

On April 10, Maryland
Governor Martin OíMalley, a Democrat, signed SB 634, the "National Popular
Vote Plan". It doesnít go into effect until states comprising a majority
of the electoral college pass similar laws. On April 23, Hawaii Governor Linda
Lingle, a Republican, vetoed SB 1956, the same plan.

SOUTH
DAKOTA MAKES BALLOT ACCESS WORSE

South Dakota Governor
Mike Rounds signed SB 6 into law on March 5. It makes it more difficult for
candidates to get on the primary ballot of a small qualified party, if the
party had gone off the ballot for failing to poll enough votes for Governor
in the last election. The old law required a number of signatures equal to
1% of that partyís last general election gubernatorial vote. That would have
meant 40 signatures of registered party members for members of the Constitution
Party in 2008 (for statewide office), and 33 signatures for Libertarians in
2008.

The new law requires
250 signatures of party members, if the party had gone off the ballot for
failing to poll enough votes in the previous election. The more lenient 1%
formula is retained for parties that polled enough votes in the preceding
election.

Also, on March 2, Governor
Rounds signed SB 81. It removes the ability of a candidate who uses the independent
procedure, to choose a partisan label that is printed on the ballot. For instance,
Howard Phillips, Constitution Party presidential candidate in 2000, used the
independent procedure in South Dakota but was able to have "Constitution
Party" next to his name. Under the new law, he could only have "independent."

HB 1007 was also signed
into law. It moves the deadline for a new party from the first Tuesday in
April to the last Tuesday in March.

HB 1240, which would
have moved the non-presidential independent candidate deadline from June to
April, failed in a Senate Committee.

ALABAMA
ELECTORS

On April 25, the Alabama
House Constitution & Elections Committee passed HB 407. It says that the
stateís presidential electors shall be elected proportionately to the stateís
popular vote. Thus, if it had been in effect in 2004, President Bush would
have got 6 electoral votes and Senator Kerry would have got 3.

BAD
MONTANA BILLS PASS LEGISLATURE

On April 25, SB 270 was
sent to Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. It moves the non-presidential independent
candidate petition deadline from June to March.

Montanaís non-presidential
independent candidate deadline had been in March between 1973 and 1990, but
in 1990, a lower state court had ruled it unconstitutional. The State Supreme
Court then vacated that decision on the grounds that the candidate who had
filed the lawsuit didnít have standing. But the Montana Supreme Court didnít
say the lower court had been wrong in its holding that a March deadline is
unconstitutional.

Furthermore, many courts
outside Montana have ruled that February, March and April petition deadlines
for non-presidential independent candidates are unconstitutional. These courts
include the First, Third, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits. The U.S. Supreme
Court in Mandel v Bradley said non-presidential independent candidate
petition deadlines are unconstitutional if few independents ever qualify.
Montana hasnít had a non-presidential independent candidate qualify for statewide
office since 1994. Montana requires 5,000 signatures. Putting the deadline
in March forces independent candidates to petition in harsh winter weather.

On April 27, Representative
Rick Jore briefly met with Governor Schweitzer and asked him to veto the bill.
The Governor has until May 5 to make up his mind.

The Montana legislature
also passed SB 96 on April 26. It makes it illegal for non-residents of Montana
to circulate an initiative petition, and it also makes it illegal for any
initiative petitioner to be paid on a per-signature basis.

The legislature has now
adjourned. It did not pass any bill to relieve the court costs of recounts
on candidates who lose the recount. Thus, Constitution Party legislator Rick
Jore still owes $18,000 for 2004.

BALLOT
ACCESS BILLS

Arizona: on April
24, the legislature passed SB 1430. It moves the primary from mid-September
to early September. That automatically moves the independent candidate deadline
from the 2nd week in June, to the 1st week in June.
It also moves the deadline for a new party from mid-March to early March.

Arkansas: on April
4, the Governor signed HB 2367, which sets up the stateís first-ever statutory
procedure for independent presidential candidates, a petition of 1,000 names.
He also signed HB 2353, which lowers the petition for new parties from 3%
of the last gubernatorial vote, to a flat 10,000 signatures.

Maine: on March
28, House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree introduced HD 1799. It eases the
petition to create a new party from 5% of the last gubernatorial vote, to
2.5%. It lowers the vote test from 5% to 2.5%. It legalizes fusion, and provides
that smaller qualified parties would nominate by convention, not primary.

New York: S29
and A575 would lower the number of signatures in half. The statewide petition
would fall from 15,000 signatures to 7,500 signatures.

Missouri: on April
26, the Senate Financial, Government Organization & Elections Committee
passed HB 894, by a vote of 3-2. It requires independent candidates to submit
a declaration of candidacy in March. The petition deadline would remain in
late July. Since the bill includes presidential independents, it is unconstitutional
as applied to presidential candidates, under Anderson v Celebrezze,
460 US 780 (1983). That decision said, "If the Stateís filing deadline
were later, a newly-emergent independent candidate could serve as the focal
point for a group of Ohio voters who decide, after mid-March, that they are
dissatisfied with the choices within the two major parties." The decision
then struck down Ohioís March 20 deadline, not because it was too difficult
to collect 5,000 signatures by that date, but because it limits flexibility.

Missouri (2):
SB138 passed the Senate on March 26. It corrects a drafting error made in
1993, which seemingly forces a new party to list candidates for presidential
elector on its petition to create a new party, even though the law does not
force that new party to list candidates for any other office on its petition.
The intent behind the 1993 bill was to let new parties circulate before they
have chosen their nominees. Then, after the petition is completed, they choose
nominees in convention.

Oregon: The Senate
Legislative Operations Committee has held two hearings on SB 630, on April
4 and April 25. SB 630 would limit the general election ballot (for all partisan
office except president) to just two candidates.

Rhode Island:
HB5466 changes the definition of "party" from a group that polled
5% for Governor at the last election, to one that polled 5% for any statewide
office. If it passes this year, and is applied retrospectively, the Cool Moose
Party would regain its status as a qualified party.

Tennessee: on
April 4, the Senate State & Local Government Committee defeated SB288
by one vote. It would have lowered the number of signatures on the petition
for a new party from 2.5% of the last gubernatorial vote, to a flat 2,500
signatures. It would also have provided that small qualified parties nominate
by convention, not primary. Democrats on the Committee voted "No";
Republicans voted "Yes." The Tennessee Constitution, Green and Libertarian
Parties will now sue to overturn the existing law. No new party has qualified
in Tennessee since 1968.

OREGON
FUSION BILL

On April 18, the Oregon
House Elections Committee passed HB 3040, by 4-2. It legalizes fusion, the
ability of two parties to jointly nominate the same candidate. Such a candidate
would be listed twice, and voters could choose whether to vote for the candidate
under party label "A" or party label "B". This type of
fusion is also used in New York, Connecticut, and South Carolina.

CALIFORNIA
IRV BILLS

On April 17, the California
Assembly Elections Committee passed both Ranked Voting bills. AB 1294 lets
any city or county use Instant-Runoff Voting for its own elections (except
School Board races). Current law only lets charter cities and counties use
IRV.

AB 1662 lets overseas
military voters use ranked voting in elections which have a possibility of
requiring a run-off. This avoids the problem that mail to overseas military
is sometimes so slow, there isnít time for the mail to go both ways when two
elections dates are close together. Under this bill, the overseas military
can vote simultaneously on both.

DC-UTAH
BILL

On April 19, the U.S.
House passed HR 1905 by a vote of 241-177. It permanently expands the size
of the U.S. House of Representatives, from 435 members to 437. It gives a
voting member to the District of Columbia. It also gives Utah a seat, but
that is a temporary gift. After the 2010 census, the normal process of reapportionment
would take effect.

OTHER
BILLS

California: on
April 19, the Assembly Elections Committee passed AB 970, which requires the
Secretary of State to sponsor three general election gubernatorial debates.
All ballot-listed candidates would be invited. The vote was 4-2, with Republicans
opposed.

Idaho: on March
30, S1244 was defeated. It would have instituted registration by party.

Iowa: on April
3, the Governor signed HF399, to let voters register at the polls on election
day.

Maryland: the
Governor signed SB 488, to let ex-felons register to vote.

New Hampshire:
on April 16, the Governor signed SB 36, to abolish the "straight-ticket"
device. A "straight-ticket device" is a choice at on a ballot which
lets a voter vote for one particular partyís nominee for every office, in
a single motion.

This book is filled with
stories of conflict so exciting that they make oneís blood race. The book
covers U.S. political and social history 1888-1908, and is the second in a
series. It is far more than an account of election campaigns and candidates.
It tells the story of some of the greatest struggles between capital and labor
of that period, in detail that makes it difficult to put the book down. However,
it is entirely even-handed, and pays just as careful attention to the Prohibition
Party, or the little-remembered Union Labor Party, as it does to the Peoples,
Socialist and Socialist Labor Parties.

Some might think that
Prohibition Party figures of the day were boring, but this is not the case.
Silas C. Swallow, the partyís 1904 nominee, was the victim of an attempted
lynching the night that President McKinley died, because he had just written
an editorial linking the violence the U.S. was using against the Philippine
independence movement with the violence that had caused three U.S. presidents
to be assassinated in only 36 years. Eugene Chafin, Prohibition Party presidential
candidate in 1908, rescued a young African-American man from a lynching while
campaigning in Springfield, Illinois. Chafin was injured in the fracas and
could easily have been killed.

The book reveals that
Eugene Debs of the Socialist Party was the first presidential candidate to
campaign from one end of the country to the other from the back of a train,
in 1908. The technique was so successful, Democratic and Republican Party
candidates copied it, and used it as late as 1960.

There are chapters on
two little-remembered minor parties that had strong support from very influential
figures.

The National (Gold) Democratic
Party of 1896 had the stealthy support of outgoing Democratic President Grover
Cleveland. The Independence Party of 1906-1908 had sizeable financial backing
from its founder, William Randolph Hearst.

In the future, Richardson
will be authoring at least three more volumes covering years after 1908. When
the series is done, it will be the definitive work for the history of minor
parties and independent candidates. Others, Volume I, was reviewed
in B.A.N. in the July 1, 2004 issue. It covered the period 1832-1886.
Others, Volume II, is more engrossing than Volume One. This is probably
because the political issues in 1888-1908 are so similar to the political
issues of today, whereas the political issues before 1888 (banking, slavery,
reconstruction of the South) are not.

This book is essential
for anyone who is interested in Green Party history or strategy. It consists
of documents and articles written by Green Party activists during the period
2003-2005, on the subject of what approach the Green Party should have used
in the 2004 election.

Authors of these documents
include Peter Camejo, John Rensenbrink, Tom Sevigny, Ted Glick, David Cobb,
Norman Solomon, Ralph Nader, editors of The Nation, Carol Miller, Forrest
Hill, Dean Myerson, Matt Gonzalez, Medea Benjamin, Steve Welzer, and others.
Many of the authors sharply disagreed with certain other authors, and the
book tries to be as even-handed as it could. A few relevant documents are
not included because certain authors refused permission for reprinting.

PRESIDENTIAL
DEBATES

Eight candidates seeking
the Democratic presidential nomination debated each other on April 26 in South
Carolina. Nine candidates seeking the Republican nomination will debate each
other on May 3. The Democratic debate received high marks for being well-organized
and interesting. If the Republican debate also appears well-managed and useful,
there should no longer be any rational reason for the general election presidential
debates to be confined to just two nominees.

The Commission on Presidential
Debates, which runs the general election debates, insists that no one be invited
who is below 15% in polls. In contrast, some of the candidates invited to
the primary season debates this year were at or below 1% in polls. Yet, they
were still invited, and their presence (at least in the Democratic debate)
enhanced the debate.

Rock the Debates is a
new organization which hopes to persuade large numbers of people in Iowa and
New Hampshire to repeatedly ask the major Republican and Democratic contenders
if they are willing to participate in an inclusive general election debate.
Specifically, the question will be whether they would participate in a debate
at which anyone who is on the ballot in enough states to win, would be invited.
In all U.S. history, there have never been more than seven such candidates,
including the major party nominees. The Rock the Debates web page is not yet
functional, but it will be soon. In the meantime, contact Bob Sullentrup at
rwsully@charter.net.

SCHOLARLY
ARTICLE ON BALLOT ACCESS

Law Professor Mark R.
Brown has written "Policing Ballot Access: Lessons from Naderís 2004
Run for President." It is in Capital University Law Review, fall 2006,
vol. 35, #1. It argues that the challenge system (used in a minority of states)
is poor public policy. That system assumes petitions are valid, but lets private
groups dispute that assumption.

Three wealthy individuals
have recently joined the Libertarian Party and are actively seeking its presidential
nomination. All are registered Libertarians and dues-paying members of the
party. None of them has run for partisan public office in the past.

Daniel Imperato, of Florida,
has been running for president for over a year, but he had previously been
running as an independent. FEC records show that he has already raised $250,000.
This year he has been visiting every state Libertarian Party convention, and
plans to continue. He has a campaign website.

Michael Jingozian, of
Oregon, has been seeking the Libertarian nomination since February. He has
attended some state conventions, has filed with the FEC, and has a campaign
website.

Wayne Root, of Nevada,
has also been seeking the Libertarian nomination since February. He has not
yet filed with the FEC and he does not yet have a campaign website, but he
will soon. He also is producing a pilot film for his own proposed "reality
TV" cable series. His cameramen were filming at the California Libertarian
Party state convention in San Ramon, California, on April 21-22.

JURY
TRIAL FOR REFORM PARTY

On April 23, a U.S. District
Court in Tallahassee, Florida, decided that a jury trial will be held starting
June 18 to determine who are the legitimate national party officers of the
Reform Party. The case is Reform Party USA v OíHara, 4:05cv426. The
lawsuit was filed in 2005 by Charles Foster, Ruben Hernandez and Beverly Kennedy
in the name of the Reform Party, against three other groups which hold themselves
out to be the national officers of the Reform Party.

The lawsuit is probably
the first lawsuit in U.S. history in which a court will determine who the
national officers of any political party are.

GEORGIA
BREAKTHROUGH

Georgia is holding a
special congressional election in June, to fill the vacant 10th
district seat. Dr. Jim Sendelbach, a Libertarian, will be on the ballot, along
with six Republicans and three Democrats. This will be the first time since
1942 that any party has placed a candidate on the ballot in a U.S. House race
in Georgia, with the party label.

Georgia special congressional
elections do not require any candidate to submit a petition. Regular U.S.
House elections, however, require a petition signed by 5% of the registered
voters in the district. This requirement is so stringent, no minor party has
ever been able to comply with it. The requirement has existed since 1943.
The last time an independent complied with it was 1964. Back in 1964, the
petition deadline was in October and the signatures were not checked. Also,
in 1964, no county was split by congressional district boundary lines. This
made it easier to circulate the petition.

Georgia has held special
congressional elections since 1942, but the law governing special elections
did not permit any party labels on the ballot, until recently.

NEW
PARTY IN PUERTO RICO

On April 23, a new party
submitted enough valid signatures to qualify for the Puerto Rican ballot.
It is the Puerto Ricans for Puerto Rico Party. Puerto Rico requires a petition
signed by 5% of the number of registered voters, for a new party to qualify.
This is the first time a new party has qualified in Puerto Rico since 1984.
The petition took two years to complete.

CONSTITUTION
PARTY CLOSER TO NATIONAL CONVENTION

The national committee
of the Constitution Party met in Boise, Idaho, April 20-22. The committee
tentatively chose Phoenix as the site for its 2008 presidential convention,
with Kansas City as a back-up. The convention will be in late April or early
May, 2008.

SUBSCRIBING
TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

If you use Paypal, you
can subscribe to B.A.N., or renew, with Paypal. If you use a credit
card in connection with Paypal, use richardwinger@yahoo.com.
If you donít use a credit card in conjunction with Paypal, use sub@richardwinger.com.